Angelo,
> I just finished to write and test the bsd startup scripts.
> I will remove the installation of the (linux/bsd) startup scripts
> from the python setup and move them in the Makefile where I think
> to put a target `make port`.
> I will move the installation of the bsd startup scripts in the
> postinstall script but I am afraid I won't be the best person for
> do the same in rpm (but still I think this would be the best place).
>
>
Thanks again very much for looking at this.
As it may be easier for us to maintain, can you rework your patch to
make "bsd-port" directory under root? I'm thinking we could keep the
tweaked Makefiles, setup.py, init-scripts, and other
BSD packaging items there -- and func could be built into CD'ing into
that directory.
cd bsd-port
make # etc
I'm thinking that may be easier to maintain as we don't have to be as
concerned with cross-distro support in the Makefiles, and you could
effectively maintain the port of all the scripts. I do not expect they
would change that much.
>
>
.. snip ...I am having trouble with that tarball link also. Thanks for pointing
> I am working on a freebsd port for automatize the installation, but I
> can't make it download directly the packages from the internet:
> Fetching the URL
> https://hosted.fedoraproject.org/projects/func/attachment/wiki/FuncReleases/func-0.13.tar.3.gz
> I just get an html page or I need to force the URL with ?format=raw,
> but I can't make it working from fetch/wget (Internal Server Error).
> The url for downloading a snapshot from git seems to be http-session
> specific to me:
> http://git.fedoraproject.org/hosted/func.git/?p=hosted/func.git;a=snapshot;h=b483a73ca70817f608f61eb2710feb203063c38b
> < http://git.fedoraproject.org/hosted/func.git/?p=hosted/func.git;a=snapshot;h=b483a73ca70817f608f61eb2710feb203063c38b>
> so I didn't even try.
> On freshmeat I only found a link for the rpm version.
this out...
Meanwhile, you can just checkout from git ... ( git clone
git://git.fedoraproject.org/git/hosted/func ).
It would probably make sense to do a release in the next few weeks so we
can look at uploading new tarballs then.Yeah, I think maintaining a seperate bsd-ports directory and keeping the
>
> Another problem is that the "all" action for Makefile is to run "make
> rpms", I had to change it in make install because Freebsd ports uses
> the default action to compile the package (not sure how to modify it)
> and I think this is the normal behavior of the most of the source
> based package managers. The patch for Makefile is attached.
RPM there might work just as well. Do you mind making a patch
modification that does this?
I'd do it myself but I can't confirm the BSD stuff is correct :)Above comments aside, this is a good idea -- and if you find any other
>
> Just making the port working on an already downloaded and renamed
> package, with a slighlty modified Makefile works fine, in fact I just
> open the tar.gz and run "make; make install".
>
> Let me know what you think. If you agree with these changes I can go
> on removing rh-specific stuff and from the next release I can provide
> a port that automatically downloads the required files and install func.
RH-isms in the python code (i.e. requirement on smolt for hardware.py),
let us know. I think all of us have an interest
in seeing this usuable in cross-OS installations, so this is goodness.
Having the BSD port available would be fantastic.
If you can tweak your patch to create a bsd directory full of setup
files, versus modifying the ones we have, I'll definitely check it
in. Sound ok?
Thanks!
>
> Angelo
Hi,
sorry, wasn't online for a few days...
I think on the short term one patch that cleans the RH-ism and add one that adds the BSD stuff will be easy to produce and maintain. Doesn't look to me the cleanest way to do so but I do agree this is the quickest and less intrusive way right now.
I will put together the patches and try to produce sth working.
Any chances with the tar.gz available online? This might help a lot. I can still work on a local web server but this will work only for me. Git doesn't look really a solution to me since add a dependency from another versioning system to install func seems a bit heavy to me and will probably discourage the most of the users (don't want to start a flame on cvs-svn-git!).
Thanks,
Angelo
